The Amazing Spider-Man So now we've seen both, which was the best? - Part 1

[The Joker]

I love you The Joker.

Thanks man, but you'll have to fight Harley for me

Sure, you can if you want. Although....does it REALLY fit since it's not the "shiniest and new" as it being Nolan's trilogy

What difference does it being part of Nolan's trilogy make? It's the latest Batman movie. Brand new. Therefore could be used in the same logic of just being liked because it's new.

, or should I still have The Dark Knight as my favorite of the two just because it had higher critical acclaim?

Well if we went by higher critical acclaim when it came to movies then you'd be liking The Avengers more than TDKR

 

[Anno_Domini]

What difference does it being part of Nolan's trilogy make? It's the latest Batman movie. Brand new. Therefore could be used in the same logic of just being liked because it's new.

And yet the difference is that I am speaking on TAS-M simply because it's NOT part of Raimi's series and that's why people seem to jump right on the "bandwagon".

Well if we went by higher critical acclaim when it came to movies then you'd be liking The Avengers more than TDKR

Well hey, then it makes sense at least why I like TDKR more than TAS-M

 

[Web face]

Um saying that people who like TASM more are just jumping on to the bandwagon because it is the newest is like saying that people who like SM1 better are just jumping on another bandwagon because of nostalgia.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Um saying that people who like TASM more are just jumping on to the bandwagon because it is the newest is like saying that people who like SM1 better are just jumping on another bandwagon because of nostalgia.

If you think so, it's your opinion, such as what I think.

 

[Web face]

If you think so, it's your opinion, such as what I think.

Yeah I guess its an opinion, but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't make it a good argument as to why people might like one over the other.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Ehh, when I see all the complaining of Raimi's films because of Spider-Man 3 and all the love TAS-M gets, it does make you think when TAS-M doesn't scream 'greatness' as Raimi's first two films in the critical acclaim area.

 

[Shikamaru]

Why the hell do I keep getting unsubscribed from threads? Ugh .

Ehh, when I see all the complaining of Raimi's films because of Spider-Man 3 and all the love TAS-M gets, it does make you think when TAS-M doesn't scream 'greatness' as Raimi's first two films in the critical acclaim area.

Spider-Man 3 are the least of my complaints about the Raimi films. I found all three movies to be poorly Spider-Man adaptations from the start. TASM is the first Spider-Man movie to portray the characters accurately and to capture the essence, tone, and spirit of the Spider-Man comics.

I still stand by the opinion (and yes, it's only an opinion) that if SM1 came out today as opposed to 2002 and TASM came out in 2002 as opposed to 2012, everyone would've laughed at SM1 and criticized it for tons of flaws the film has. I feel that people give all its flaws a pass not only because it's the first live-action portrayal of Spider-Man but also because it is one of the first comic book movies made in general and there was nothing like it before (in terms of the cheesy tone, that is). Notice how whenever you list all the flaws the Raimi films have (not you specifically but people in general), the main defense people use is "Yeah but it was the first Spider-Man film made and its success made the character even more popular to the GA so give it a pass". But take away the fact that it's the first Spider-Man film made and that it's one of the first CBM's ever made. Is the film still that impressive? No.

 

[Anno_Domini]

What flaws did the '02 film really have though besides Kirsten Dunst?

 

[Shikamaru]

What flaws did the '02 film really have though besides Kirsten Dunst?

Well, let's start with the ridiculously cheesy and campy tone that doesn't fit Spider-Man. Spider-Man comics are a lot more serious than that. They may not be Batman dark (at least not most of them) but they're definitely not that cheesy and silly.

Then there is Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire does portray Peter Parker as a nerd, but the wrong type of nerd. Peter Parker in the comics was never the clumsy George McFly stereotypical nerd-dork, which is what Tobey portrays him as. He was more of a smartass nerd and wasn't the stereotypical nerd past the glasses and haircut (in the 60's comics, that is). There are moments in the classic Lee/Ditko stories where he constantly talks backs to Flash and even challenges him to a boxing match at one point because he gets tired of his crap. He even demanded Jameson to raise his salary at one point. Tobey's Peter is a pushover, far beyond the pushover limit that you should make Peter a pushover. His Peter was the bud of everyone's joke, while in the comics, with the exception of Flash and the main popular kids, the rest of the school just ignored Peter. They didn't pick on him but weren't friendly to him either. He was an outcast. Then in terms of writing, Peter is never shown to be intelligent. They keep talking about how smart he is but we never see him invent something or use his wits in battle. The only time we see him do anything close to that is in Spider-Man 3 when he figures out Venom's weakness.

As for Tobey's Spider-Man, Tobey portrayed him as a mute serious crimefighter, the exact opposite of what Spidey is. He barely quips and when he doesn't, he can't deliver the lines properly.

Then there is Kirsten Dunst. That's pretty self explanatory right there. lol

Then there is the Green Goblin. The look is the least of my problems with him. He is ridiculously watered down in comparison to his comic book counterpart and completely lacks everything that makes the Green Goblin scary, threatening, and menacing. I don't blame Dafoe for this. I believe he may be able to pull off a good GG but the writers wrote him incredibly cheesy. Not to mention he lacks a clear motivation (we discussed this before).

I can't say much on Harry since they barely do anything with him. He was alright. Just alright.

Then there is the origin. Not only is it rushed and once it's out of the way it feels like a whole different film but there are small flaws here and there that bother me other than it being rushed such as the wrestling scene. So Peter is stupid enough to show his face to all the people working there. I can kinda let that slip. What I can't let slip is him signing up (and yes, he signed up - he even says "I did not sign up for this" when in the cage). Him signing up as in with his official name since that's the only way he can get in. Can't they track him down and know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man? Any cop can find out through enough research that a guy that signed up at some wrestling match went by the name "Spider-Man" and can track Peter down to investigate.

 

[bullets]

Um saying that people who like TASM more are just jumping on to the bandwagon because it is the newest is like saying that people who like SM1 better are just jumping on another bandwagon because of nostalgia.

I thought SM1 and SM2 were great films , but I don't have to be a rude condescending a-hole about it. It's a shame we're seeing a lot of that in this thread.

 

[spidermanJLA!~]

Well, let's start with the ridiculously cheesy and campy tone that doesn't fit Spider-Man. Spider-Man comics are a lot more serious than that. They may not be Batman dark (at least not most of them) but they're definitely not that cheesy and silly.

Then there is Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire does portray Peter Parker as a nerd, but the wrong type of nerd. Peter Parker in the comics was never the clumsy George McFly stereotypical nerd-dork, which is what Tobey portrays him as. He was more of a smartass nerd and wasn't the stereotypical nerd past the glasses and haircut (in the 60's comics, that is). There are moments in the classic Lee/Ditko stories where he constantly talks backs to Flash and even challenges him to a boxing match at one point because he gets tired of his crap. He even demanded Jameson to raise his salary at one point. Tobey's Peter is a pushover, far beyond the pushover limit that you should make Peter a pushover. His Peter was the bud of everyone's joke, while in the comics, with the exception of Flash and the main popular kids, the rest of the school just ignored Peter. They didn't pick on him but weren't friendly to him either. He was an outcast. Then in terms of writing, Peter is never shown to be intelligent. They keep talking about how smart he is but we never see him invent something or use his wits in battle. The only time we see him do anything close to that is in Spider-Man 3 when he figures out Venom's weakness.

As for Tobey's Spider-Man, Tobey portrayed him as a mute serious crimefighter, the exact opposite of what Spidey is. He barely quips and when he doesn't, he can't deliver the lines properly.

Then there is Kirsten Dunst. That's pretty self explanatory right there. lol

Then there is the Green Goblin. The look is the least of my problems with him. He is ridiculously watered down in comparison to his comic book counterpart and completely lacks everything that makes the Green Goblin scary, threatening, and menacing. I don't blame Dafoe for this. I believe he may be able to pull off a good GG but the writers wrote him incredibly cheesy. Not to mention he lacks a clear motivation (we discussed this before).

I can't say much on Harry since they barely do anything with him. He was alright. Just alright.

Then there is the origin. Not only is it rushed and once it's out of the way it feels like a whole different film but there are small flaws here and there that bother me other than it being rushed such as the wrestling scene. So Peter is stupid enough to show his face to all the people working there. I can kinda let that slip. What I can't let slip is him signing up (and yes, he signed up - he even says "I did not sign up for this" when in the cage). Him signing up as in with his official name since that's the only way he can get in. Can't they track him down and know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man? Any cop can find out through enough research that a guy that signed up at some wrestling match went by the name "Spider-Man" and can track Peter down to investigate.

Just out of curiosity, did you think that way when you first walked out of SM/SM2?

 

[Shikamaru]

(continued)

Overall, the main problem with the Raimi films isn't that they're necessarily bad as adaptations but that they're half-assed. They're alright movies (except for SM3) but they feel as incomplete Spider-Man films. They do get some parts of Spider-Man right but they also lack a lot. It's like Sony quickly rushed into the production by not even fully casting the best actors for the roles and having the best script with a movie that doesn't rush things and further expands on Spider-Man related things and has more depth.


I only recently had this thought but if you think about it, the Raimi films overall have hurt the image of Spider-Man to a few people of the general audience. Whenever you meet an average Joe that is a Spider-Man hater and you ask them to list reasons why Spider-Man is a bad or lame character, what reasons do you usually hear them list? They're reasons like this:

-He's a clumsy dork.
-He always cries.
-He cried just because a girl broke up with him.
-He's not that smart.
-He's not that heroic.
-He's a "*****" who can't stand up to anyone.
-He's not funny and doesn't have any confidence behind the mask.
-His villains are lame, not threatening, and are all whiny sympathetic crybabies.

Most of these reasons are only valid when applied to Raimi's Spider-Man (unless the average Joe at hand read an incredibly bad comic book like One More Day but average Joe's don't usually read comics).

 

[Anno_Domini]

Well, let's start with the ridiculously cheesy and campy tone that doesn't fit Spider-Man. Spider-Man comics are a lot more serious than that. They may not be Batman dark (at least not most of them) but they're definitely not that cheesy and silly.

When it needed to be, the '02 film was finely "dark". It had its campiness, but that is only Raimi's shtick, but Raimi did understand certain elements needed to be "dark" which what happened with Green Goblin and even in Spider-Man 2 with Doc Ock.

I feel the word campy is used a lot more lately since TAS-M tbh.

Then there is Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Tobey Maguire does portray Peter Parker as a nerd, but the wrong type of nerd. Peter Parker in the comics was never the clumsy George McFly stereotypical nerd-dork, which is what Tobey portrays him as. He was more of a smartass nerd and wasn't the stereotypical nerd past the glasses and haircut (in the 60's comics, that is). There are moments in the classic Lee/Ditko stories where he constantly talks backs to Flash and even challenges him to a boxing match at one point because he gets tired of his crap. He even demanded Jameson to raise his salary at one point. Tobey's Peter is a pushover, far beyond the pushover limit that you should make Peter a pushover. His Peter was the bud of everyone's joke, while in the comics, with the exception of Flash and the main popular kids, the rest of the school just ignored Peter. They didn't pick on him but weren't friendly to him either. He was an outcast. Then in terms of writing, Peter is never shown to be intelligent. They keep talking about how smart he is but we never see him invent something or use his wits in battle. The only time we see him do anything close to that is in Spider-Man 3 when he figures out Venom's weakness.

Raimi's Peter is definitely my favorite version of him between the two Spidey films and I enjoy that far better than Webb's version, but I do understand how some don't enjoy the "over-the-top" nerd as Tobey's Peter Parker was. But, that version never bothered me as it was something different and showed a huge contrast from Peter pre-spider bite and after the spider bite. There was no contrast such as that in TAS-M before the spider bite and after.

Plus, where in the first two movies did it really call for Peter to use his intelligence and wits as much as he did in his battle with Venom?

As for Tobey's Spider-Man, Tobey portrayed him as a mute serious crimefighter, the exact opposite of what Spidey is. He barely quips and when he doesn't, he can't deliver the lines properly.

Feel the very opposite. When he did deliver the lines, they were top notch, imo. But it's also not like Webb's Spidey was so quick with the quips either. The only memorable one, imo, is when he yelled out "Crotch!"

Then there is Kirsten Dunst. That's pretty self explanatory right there. lol

Which I already brought up, so you get no points for this, lol.

Then there is the Green Goblin. The look is the least of my problems with him. He is ridiculously watered down in comparison to his comic book counterpart and completely lacks everything that makes the Green Goblin scary, threatening, and menacing. I don't blame Dafoe for this. I believe he may be able to pull off a good GG but the writers wrote him incredibly cheesy. Not to mention he lacks a clear motivation (we discussed this before).

Not cheesy, but definitely watered down. It did hurt with being involved in an origin film which we never see a main villain being used while in an origin film, but, imo, as we see in TAS-M, even a villain that isn't the greatest villain to the hero can still be watered down extremely in an origin film. I can at least say Norman Osborn felt properly developed as opposed to Curt Connors even if Green Goblin wasn't up to his comics ways.

I can't say much on Harry since they barely do anything with him. He was alright. Just alright.

He was alright in the first film, great in Spider-Man 2 and only okay in Spider-Man 3. His death was his only real powerful performance in S-M 3.

Then there is the origin. Not only is it rushed and once it's out of the way it feels like a whole different film but there are small flaws here and there that bother me other than it being rushed such as the wrestling scene. So Peter is stupid enough to show his face to all the people working there. I can kinda let that slip. What I can't let slip is him signing up (and yes, he signed up - he even says "I did not sign up for this" when in the cage). Him signing up as in with his official name since that's the only way he can get in. Can't they track him down and know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man? Any cop can find out through enough research that a guy that signed up at some wrestling match went by the name "Spider-Man" and can track Peter down to investigate.

Not only is it rushed and once it's out of the way it feels like a whole different film

^ How I feel with TAS-M, lol.

I don't think the '02 film rushes an origin at all. While he gets bitten very quickly, his trials of learning his abilities and trying to use his powers for money is greatly detailed and definitely feels Peter really learned "With great power comes great responsibility" much, much better than in the reboot, even if Peter doesn't learn that until the third film or what have you in Webb's series.

 

[Shikamaru]

Just out of curiosity, did you think that way when you first walked out of SM/SM2?

I was 9 years old when I walked out of SM1 and 12 when I walked out of SM2 so I wasn't able to have a rational analyzed opinion of the films back then plus I didn't read a lot of comics or fully understood the characters. Back then, I used to love those films. I remember seeing SM1 multiple times in theatres and then even more multiple times on DVD and on TV. Then shortly before SM3 came out (or around the same time it came out), I was into my teen years. By that time, I had a lot more knowledge of the Spider-Man comics and was able to review a film more from an objective critique point of view. When I went back to rewatch SM1 and SM2 (it was right before I saw SM3), I didn't hate them but I didn't love them as much as I did either. I just saw them as alright films that lacked a lot in terms of a Spider-Man film. They didn't exactly bastardize the character like other comic book films but they didn't do justice to him either. Shortly after that, I was hoping SM3 would've changed that but...yeah, I'm sure you already know how I think that turned out. But I personally wanted a reboot even before seeing SM3 not because I despised the Raimi films but because I believed that Spider-Man deserved films much better than the films he had back then. TASM is by no means a perfect film but it's a great start in the right direction especially with the casting and story they set up.


And I may seem like I completely hate SM1 and SM2 but I actually don't. I can still enjoy watching them from time to time as just movies. It's not like I turn on my TV when watching them and have the "Oh God! Why, Raimi, why?!?!" reaction, at least not throughout most of the scenes in the movies.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I thought SM1 and SM2 were great films , but I don't have to be a rude condescending a-hole about it. It's a shame we're seeing a lot of that in this thread.

Before you assume such, I would advise you to read my posts where I didn't say all TAS-M fans feel like they jumped on the bandwagon.

But was that condescending too?

 

[Anno_Domini]

-He's a clumsy dork.

Which fits the nerd idea.

-He always cries.
-He cried just because a girl broke up with him.

Never said I liked Spider-Man 3.

-He's not that smart.

Have you seen Spider-Man 1 and 2 at all?

Yes, he doesn't SHOW it as much as Webb's Peter, but at least he knows the stuff on the top of his head rather than having to read about something the day before.

-He's not that heroic.

He's not? Are you sure about that? Trying to save some kids AND the woman he loves?

-He's a "*****" who can't stand up to anyone.

Sure, it sucks he never stood up to Flash pre spider bite as Webb's Peter does, but one thing makes a difference who who can stand up to who?

-He's not funny and doesn't have any confidence behind the mask.

Well we already discussed this on the other post.

-His villains are lame, not threatening, and are all whiny sympathetic crybabies.

Lame and non-threatening...Lizard.

Sympathetic? Sure, but TAS-M keeps this trend as well as Connors is a very sympathetic man who's only obsessed with a serum that turns him into a giant lizard that messes up his mind in thinking he can "cure" NYC.

 

[bullets]

Before you assume such, I would advise you to read my posts where I didn't say all TAS-M fans feel like they jumped on the bandwagon.

But was that condescending too?

I was actually referring to another poster. Unfortunately that type of attitude trickles onto other posters and things start to get ugly(on both sides).

 

[Web face]

Before you assume such, I would advise you to read my posts where I didn't say all TAS-M fans feel like they jumped on the bandwagon.

But was that condescending too?

He never said he was talking about you. If you aren't being an A-hole about things, then it wasn't directed at you. Though, I must say, even though I'm not about calling you a hater, I can definitely see how what you say might get annoying. I know you are just having your fun, but try to tone it down a bit.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I was actually referring to another poster. Unfortunately that type of attitude trickles onto other posters and things start to get ugly(on both sides).

Ahh, okay. Everyone seems to be pointing fingers at me, so I guess I assumed too quickly.

My apologies.

 

[Shikamaru]

When it needed to be, the '02 film was finely "dark". It had its campiness, but that is only Raimi's shtick, but Raimi did understand certain elements needed to be "dark" which what happened with Green Goblin and even in Spider-Man 2 with Doc Ock.

I feel the word campy is used a lot more lately since TAS-M tbh.

Except that Green Goblin was barely dark. He had ridiculously cheesy lines and was watered down. Doc Ock was a lot more serious though. I'll give him credit for that. SM2 is a major step-up from SM1.

Raimi's Peter is definitely my favorite version of him between the two Spidey films and I enjoy that far better than Webb's version, but I do understand how some don't enjoy the "over-the-top" nerd as Tobey's Peter Parker was. But, that version never bothered me as it was something different and showed a huge contrast from Peter pre-spider bite and after the spider bite. There was no contrast such as that in TAS-M before the spider bite and after.

I'm talking about the film from an adaptation point of view. Regardless of how you feel about the take on Peter, Peter was never portrayed as the "over the top" nerd in the comics.

It didn't show much of a contrast. Peter was still mostly George McFly even post-spider bite (in the Raimi films, that is).

Plus, where in the first two movies did it really call for Peter to use his intelligence and wits as much as he did in his battle with Venom?

Exactly. That's why I said the lack of Spidey's intelligence is a problem with the script and that it's not Tobey's fault.

Feel the very opposite. When he did deliver the lines, they were top notch, imo. But it's also not like Webb's Spidey was so quick with the quips either. The only memorable one, imo, is when he yelled out "Crotch!"

I thought Andrew Garfield delivered the lines great and constantly quipped throughout the film. Heck, he quipped more in the parking lot scene than Spider-Man did in all 3 Raimi films.

Which I already brought up, so you get no points for this, lol.

Not cheesy, but definitely watered down. It did hurt with being involved in an origin film which we never see a main villain being used while in an origin film, but, imo, as we see in TAS-M, even a villain that isn't the greatest villain to the hero can still be watered down extremely in an origin film. I can at least say Norman Osborn felt properly developed as opposed to Curt Connors even if Green Goblin wasn't up to his comics ways.

The Lizard may have not been as dark as he has been portrayed in a lot of Lizard stories but he wasn't that watered down either. That version of the Lizard does exist in the comics (though not as much recently) and the Lizard did have many scary moments in TASM, even more than GG in SM1, such as the sewer fight scene (the first one) and the scene where he finds Gwen in the closet. Everyone in my theater jumped during that moment.

Properly developed? At least Lizard had a motivation that made sense. Heck, at least Lizard had a motivation period .

He was alright in the first film, great in Spider-Man 2 and only okay in Spider-Man 3. His death was his only real powerful performance in S-M 3.

Agreed. James Franco was one of the things I liked the most about the Raimi films. He's not exactly that great of a Harry since Harry was never charming or anything of the sort but I did enjoy seeing Franco on screen out of most of the actors.

^ How I feel with TAS-M, lol.

I don't think the '02 film rushes an origin at all. While he gets bitten very quickly, his trials of learning his abilities and trying to use his powers for money is greatly detailed and definitely feels Peter really learned "With great power comes great responsibility" much, much better than in the reboot, even if Peter doesn't learn that until the third film or what have you in Webb's series.

I felt the whole thing was rushed in general including him learning his abilities and him using his powers for money. I am willing to give SM1 props on Peter using his abilities for money though even if I thought it was quickly paced. That's one of my biggest complaints with TASM - that we never see him use his powers for money.

Peter learns WGPCGR in both films. Difference is that Peter learns it right after the quickly rushed origin in SM1 while Peter in TASM learns it at the end of the film.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Except that Green Goblin was barely dark. He had ridiculously cheesy lines and was watered down. Doc Ock was a lot more serious though. I'll give him credit for that. SM2 is a major step-up from SM1.

Ridiculously cheesy lines? I don't think so. The only thing "cheesy" was him interrupting Aunt May's prayer, but I enjoyed Green Goblin's dialogue myself.

I'm talking about the film from an adaptation point of view. Regardless of how you feel about the take on Peter, Peter was never portrayed as the "over the top" nerd in the comics.

It didn't show much of a contrast. Peter was still mostly George McFly even post-spider bite (in the Raimi films, that is).

If we are speaking on an adaptation point of view, is Peter ever shown as a total outcast?

Imo, TSSM has it perfectly, imo. He was this nerd as we see in flashbacks before he was bit and then he became more "chill" as a person, but never much as an outcast as he is in TAS-M either.

And yes, there is a huge contrast. Peter became more self confident, but just not to the woman he loves.

Exactly. That's why I said the lack of Spidey's intelligence is a problem with the script and that it's not Tobey's fault.

I don't see that being a problem with Tobey's Peter though. Nolan's Batman isn't the greatest detective as he should be, but it doesn't take away Nolan's Batman being written very well.

I thought Andrew Garfield delivered the lines great and constantly quipped throughout the film. Heck, he quipped more in the parking lot scene than Spider-Man did in all 3 Raimi films.

Ehh, to each their own. I rather enjoyed Andrew's performance only as Spider-Man and not as Peter Parker, but I feel the quips were fine in Raimi's two Spidey films. Then it sounded corny in the third as much as everything else.

Fine, you get...half a point.

The Lizard may have not been as dark as he has been portrayed in a lot of Lizard stories but he wasn't that watered down either. That version of the Lizard does exist in the comics (though not as much recently) and the Lizard did have many scary moments in TASM, even more than GG in SM1, such as the sewer fight scene (the first one) and the scene where he finds Gwen in the closet. Everyone in my theater jumped during that moment.

Finding Gwen in the closet wasn't near scary, imo. And neither was the sewer fight scene as it was predictable as soon as we see his tail sneak behind Spidey.

Properly developed? At least Lizard had a motivation that made sense. Heck, at least Lizard had a motivation period .

Hah, debatable.

Agreed. James Franco was one of the things I liked the most about the Raimi films. He's not exactly that great of a Harry since Harry was never charming or anything of the sort but I did enjoy seeing Franco on screen out of most of the actors.

I felt the whole thing was rushed in general including him learning his abilities and him using his powers for money. I am willing to give SM1 props on Peter using his abilities for money though even if I thought it was quickly paced. That's one of my biggest complaints with TASM - that we never see him use his powers for money.

Peter learns WGPCGR in both films. Difference is that Peter learns it right after the quickly rushed origin in SM1 while Peter in TASM learns it at the end of the film.

Still don't see it being quickly rushed. If anything, Green Goblin was rushed only because the film took too much time on the origin side of the film.

 

[Human Torch]

I think the term "campy" gets tossed around a bit freely.Batman & Robin was campy.Spider-Man doesn't deserve that title.

I could never understand how people say Spider-Man wasn't "dark" enough.You have the Goblin killing the guy that just tried to revive him (Stromm), vaporising a group of people,terrorizing Aunt May and sending her to the hospital,trying to kill a group of kids (and MJ) before getting impaled to a wall.Plus Uncle Ben's death and Heaven only knows what that gang was going to do to MJ.

TAS's supposed darkness was all sunshine and rainbows compared to S-M.

 

[chaseter]

I cannot wait for another reboot to see a lot of the people in here cannibalize themselves.

 

[DACrowe]

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to write it off as that. You're implying that those of us who prefer TASM are only doing so because we can't help but fall in line with the 'newest toy' as opposed to the 'tried-but-true classic'.

A lot of us have actually stated some pretty well thought out reasons as to why we prefer the newer one, and those reasons have nothing to do with how 'shiny' it is.

Not going to pick a fight. I obviously prefer the Raimi film, but it's just I see it all the time. Raimi used to be great to fans, but after SM3 he was bad. After a reboot was announced many fans said they always disliked the original two. Go to the bat boards right now. Quite a few dislike TDKR. The more they talk about the reboot, the more they start saying how unsatisfying Nolan was, just like how Burton went from respected to despised when BB came out. Can you imagine that after four years of hero worshipping on those boards? It is just a trend I see.

 

[DACrowe]

And to explain my point a little further, which is not about fandom, the reason I don't think TASM caught on in pop culture is articulated best in this:



That is why I think the movie while competent feels kind of empty to many people who watch the newest film.